January 22, 2021 – Digital service providers without permission under the trade regulations are not allowed to advise on the revocation of life insurance contracts. A collection permit does not cover this service, according to the Munich Higher Regional Court. The LG Nürnberg-Fürth ruled on bans on contact with the companies concerned when purchasing insurance contracts. The judges declared this inadmissible.
According to the Competition headquarters the Higher Regional Court (OLG) Munich ruled on December 3, 2020 (29 In 7047/19) prohibits a provider of legal tech services from providing advice on the cancellation of life insurance.
The company, which has a collection permit under the Legal Services Act, has offered consumers the opportunity to review their life insurance contracts on the Internet. The background to the offer was the reversal of the respective policies.
Advice on insurance only with permission
If there was any prospect of success, insurance customers were given the prospect of “online commissioning and legal enforcement by partner lawyers”, according to the competition center.
The OLG evaluated this procedure as insurance advice. The reason: The company provided consumers with legal support when examining insurance contracts for the possibility of revocation.
However, this represents advice on insurance that requires a permit. And the company did not have this proof. The collection permit does not cover these services. The judgment of the OLG is not yet final.
Contact bans hamper competition
In addition, the competition center informs about a judgment of the regional court (LG) Nürnberg-Fürth from December 9th, 2020 (4 HK O 2871/18).
Accordingly, when purchasing insurance contracts, consumers must not be induced to prohibit contact with the insurer concerned and who in future may only correspond with the legal tech provider.
The defendant legal tech company offers consumers the purchase of life insurance, home loan and savings contracts, accident insurance and Riester contracts. To this end, it concludes purchase and assignment contracts with the policyholders.
In these agreements it is stated that the service provider can indicate to the insurance company that he is authorized to conduct all future correspondence with the company. The LG Nürnberg-Fürth classified this ban on contact as an “inadmissible hindrance to the insurer affected by the purchase of the contract”, according to the competition center.
Similar judgments to contact bans
According to the competition center, the insurer must have the opportunity to inform the consumer about the consequences of the sale and win him back as a customer. The verdict is not yet legally binding.
The competition headquarters reported a similar judgment in the summer. The OLG Oldenburg had sentenced an insurance broker by judgment of May 28, 2019 (06 U 27/18).
The agent had initiated a ban on contact with those customers whom he had previously looked after as a representative of the insurer and now wanted to cover. The judges had a violation of this § 4 Nr. 4 UWG seen (Insurance Journal August 30, 2019).
The Jena Higher Regional Court (OLG) also ruled on March 27, 2019 (2 U 397/18) that it is inadmissible to induce policyholders to issue a comprehensive ban on contact (January 6, 2020).
– .
